2020 Draft

[payitforward]

About time!

[dckingsfan]

And let the debates begin ... I think that Deni Avdija should be in that group. He is a legit 6'8", very good defensive rebounder, has good handles, good passer, good scorer and hits the 3 well. Definitely take him over Killian Hayes.

There's alot to like about Avdija's game but the man cannot shoot! Nor is he creating shots for himself. How does he score?

Well, he does "score" pretty well and has a pretty good TS and eFG, no? And I would disagree with you that he can't create his own shot. But you make a point on his 3PT%. But it is improving and I see that getting better in time.

[Ruzious]

And let the debates begin ... I think that Deni Avdija should be in that group. He is a legit 6'8", very good defensive rebounder, has good handles, good passer, good scorer and hits the 3 well. Definitely take him over Killian Hayes.

There's alot to like about Avdija's game but the man cannot shoot! Nor is he creating shots for himself. How does he score?

Well, he does "score" pretty well and has a pretty good TS and eFG, no? And I would disagree with you that he can't create his own shot. But you make a point on his 3PT%. But it is improving and I see that getting better in time.

He's actually now listed at 6'9, so he could presumably play some PF - if needed. I think he's one of those players that if you think his 3 ball will work in the NBA, you gotta like him A LOT, but if you don't think his 3 will work - that's a problem. Carry on.

[dckingsfan]

There's alot to like about Avdija's game but the man cannot shoot! Nor is he creating shots for himself. How does he score?

Well, he does "score" pretty well and has a pretty good TS and eFG, no? And I would disagree with you that he can't create his own shot. But you make a point on his 3PT%. But it is improving and I see that getting better in time.

He's actually now listed at 6'9, so he could presumably play some PF - if needed. I think he's one of those players that if you think his 3 ball will work in the NBA, you gotta like him A LOT, but if you don't think his 3 will work - that's a problem. Carry on.

Ah, probably where we are sideways. He is definitely a PF. I think he is already taller than Rui for example. And he is a pretty good rebounder already (but not a rim protector). If I have Rui, I don't take him because then one of them is redundant.

I think he will grow into the 3. And his ball handling and passing are already solid. I can't compare to most of the others on the list but I take him over Hayes. (shoe leather sitting by the side of my desk, aging for three years).

Moving on

[Ruzious]

Well, he does "score" pretty well and has a pretty good TS and eFG, no? And I would disagree with you that he can't create his own shot. But you make a point on his 3PT%. But it is improving and I see that getting better in time.

He's actually now listed at 6'9, so he could presumably play some PF - if needed. I think he's one of those players that if you think his 3 ball will work in the NBA, you gotta like him A LOT, but if you don't think his 3 will work - that's a problem. Carry on.

Ah, probably where we are sideways. He is definitely a PF. I think he is already taller than Rui for example. And he is a pretty good rebounder already (but not a rim protector). If I have Rui, I don't take him because then one of them is redundant.

I think he will grow into the 3. And his ball handling and passing are already solid. I can't compare to most of the others on the list but I take him over Hayes. (shoe leather sitting by the side of my desk, aging for three years).

I would say the opposite - he's a 3 that he could grow (literally) into a combo forward. Any PF's his size are explosive athletes or at least long, and while he's a good athlete, he's not particularly explosive from what I've seen and read, and he's got average length - for a 3. And he's rebounded like a 3: 6.6 rebounds per 36 minutes. But he's just 19 playing in a good league, so there's more growth to come in his game.

[payitforward]

Nice to see that Dat has Vassell in the top 10. From the little I saw of him at Fla. St. and what I've read and seen on tape since, I'm feeling like he could be a smart (and safe) pick at 9.

I don't see why Vassell should fail to be an ok NBA player. But in honesty, I can't see how any single pick can be regarded as safe.

At that point in the draft, what are the chances of getting a genuinely good player -- a guy who goes on to have an extended career in the league & posts above average numbers at his position?

Well, from 2004 through 2017 42 guys were picked in one of those 3 spots. 15 of the 42 have been at least "good" & maybe better:

Andre Iguodala
Rudy Gay
Joakim Noah
D.J. Augustin
Brook Lopez
DeMar DeRozan
Al-Farouq Aminu
Gordon Hayward
Paul George
Kemba Walker
Andre Drummond
K C-P
CJ McCollum
Noah Vonleh
Elfrid Payton (doesn't get much attention but consistently puts up + numbers)

That's under 36% across 3 picks. IOW, a 12% chance that the guy we pick at #9 will end up on a list of the preceding kind: a good NBA player or better w/ a solid career..

5 others don't make that list for a variety of reasons but are worth mentioning:

Marquese Chriss (mostly terrible until he was good this year)
Jakob Poeltl (productive player but has averaged @17-18 minute a game)
Brandan Wright (only 7000 minutes / 11 years)
Jordan Hill (7000 minutes in career)
Terrence Ross (1 year of better than average numbers)

[payitforward]

I imagine that we'd all agree that 6 of the first 15 above have been really outstanding: Andre Iguodala, Rudy Gay, DeMar DeRozan, Gordon Hayward, Paul George, & Kemba Walker.

So, if you have one of those picks -- either the #8, 9 or 10 -- in six successive drafts, then you are likely to get one player who is "really outstanding."

Them's the odds.

[DCZards]

Nice to see that Dat has Vassell in the top 10. From the little I saw of him at Fla. St. and what I've read and seen on tape since, I'm feeling like he could be a smart (and safe) pick at 9.

I don't see why Vassell should fail to be an ok NBA player. But in honesty, I can't see how any single pick can be regarded as safe.

You’re right…calling Vassell (or anyone for that matter) a “safe pick” is a bad choice of words. What I do like about Vassell is that he has the size, length and motor to be a great defender and he’s a very good 3 pt shooter.

I too see the wisdom of trading down for multiple picks later in the first round. But since those trades rarely happen it’s much more likely that the Zards will be making their assigned lottery pick (9?). So I’m going to be spending my time and energy looking at (and discussing) what players might be available with that 9th pick.

[doclinkin]

1. G LaMelo Ball. Most dynamic player maker in the draft. Legit 6-8. Likely will get his fair share of triple doubles. Got a few kinks to iron out (jumpshot & defensive intensity).

There's alot to like about Avdija's game but the man cannot shoot! ... How does he score?

One could say the same about Melo.
Shooting TS .459 in the Aussie leagues.
That's no good.
Ditto passive defense.

In passing and reading the floor he has a Jason Kidd level of all court awareness. You figure at some point that translates to defense as well. A broke jumpshot is not impossible to overcome, but it is why his brother has changed teams and has never (yet) fully lived up to the hyperbole. And why people still have question marks about Ben Simmons. And the first thing brought up by haters when sniping at John Wall.

[Ruzious]

Poor shooting might have ended MKG's NBA career at age 26 (and Ronnie Brewer's at 28). Not seeing why Ball would be more likely than Avdija to develop a 3.

[payitforward]

Nice to see that Dat has Vassell in the top 10. From the little I saw of him at Fla. St. and what I've read and seen on tape since, I'm feeling like he could be a smart (and safe) pick at 9.

I don't see why Vassell should fail to be an ok NBA player. But in honesty, I can't see how any single pick can be regarded as safe.

You’re right…calling Vassell (or anyone for that matter) a “safe pick” is a bad choice of words. What I do like about Vassell is that he has the size, length and motor to be a great defender and he’s a very good 3 pt shooter.

I too see the wisdom of trading down for multiple picks later in the first round. But since those trades rarely happen it’s much more likely that the Zards will be making their assigned lottery pick (9?). So I’m going to be spending my time and energy looking at (and discussing) what players might be available with that 9th pick.

Hey, that is perfectly sensible, utterly rational, even wise... which makes me want to ask... what! -- why be rational?

If we are rational, the conversation is over in 10 minutes: should one of the unlikelies (Wiseman et. al.) drop, take him. If not, since we cannot possibly know in advance who among, say, Vassell, Haliburton, Saddiq Bey, et. al. is going to work out best, who worst, or even know how to watch out for Mr. In-between, we might as well revert to the tried/true Ernie methodology of "pin the tail on the donkey."

OTOH, if we studiously avoid rationality -- "get thee behind me, rationality!" -- we can figure out how to get 6 rookies. I mean... one of them is bound to be good, right? & that will allow me and Ruzious to remember how right we were once again... sigh... why does no one listen to me?!?..."

You feeling me?

[DCZards]

I don't see why Vassell should fail to be an ok NBA player. But in honesty, I can't see how any single pick can be regarded as safe.

You’re right…calling Vassell (or anyone for that matter) a “safe pick” is a bad choice of words. What I do like about Vassell is that he has the size, length and motor to be a great defender and he’s a very good 3 pt shooter.

I too see the wisdom of trading down for multiple picks later in the first round. But since those trades rarely happen it’s much more likely that the Zards will be making their assigned lottery pick (9?). So I’m going to be spending my time and energy looking at (and discussing) what players might be available with that 9th pick.

Hey, that is perfectly sensible, utterly rational, even wise... which makes me want to ask... what! -- why be rational?

If we are rational, the conversation is over in 10 minutes: should one of the unlikelies (Wiseman et. al.) drop, take him. If not, since we cannot possibly know in advance who among, say, Vassell, Haliburton, Saddiq Bey, et. al. is going to work out best, who worst, or even know how to watch out for Mr. In-between, we might as well revert to the tried/true Ernie methodology of "pin the tail on the donkey."

OTOH, if we studiously avoid rationality -- "get thee behind me, rationality!" -- we can figure out how to get 6 rookies. I mean... one of them is bound to be good, right? & that will allow me and Ruzious to remember how right we were once again... sigh... why does no one listen to me?!?..."

You feeling me?

I’m feeling you…sort of.

Far be it from me to suggest that you stop being “irrational.” After all, these discussion boards are for people to have fun and to share their opinions, hopes and dreams.

I’m just saying that I personally prefer hearing people’s takes on what’s more likely to happen—which is that the Zards will end up picking in the lottery. That’s why I look forward to Dat’s list (and those of other posters) which gives us something concrete to debate, discuss or dismiss.

The other thing is that the Zards don’t need to draft 6 rookies. (I know you weren’t being serious about that.) What the Zards need to do is focus on developing the promising young players (Brown, Bryant, Wagner, Rui, Bonga) that are currently on the roster. I'd be happy with drafting or signing as free agents 3-4 rookies with potential.

[payitforward]

3-4 rookies? Absolutely! Realistically, assuming nothing odd occurs, we are at 13 guys before the draft (i.e. including re-signing Bertans & Napier & putting Mathews on the regular roster). Which means we'll have room for our R1 & R2 picks (& a couple of 2-way guys). 6 rookies is just me indulging my *not* "more likely to happen" side.

In fact, your list of 5 "promising young players" omitted Jerome Robinson, Admiral Schofield & Mathews. Pasecniks as well, though I wonder whether they really want to (or should) keep him. We only have 3 true "veterans" on our roster right now -- Bertans & Napier would make it 5.

It's impressive how quickly Tommy has put the Ernie era in the distant background. Only 4 guys on the team next year will have played for the Wizards in 2018-19: Wall, Beal, Brown & Bryant. & I think of the last two as additions made by Tommy Sheppard.

[The Consiglieri]

Read on Twitter

Actually, what this tells me is that "it's probably not a very good... crop" of guys doing the projecting!

Literally everyone everywhere? Doubtful. In my experience, drafts tagged this bad, have always been bad historically. That isn't to say there were hidden gems, with '13 being the most recent glaring example of a bad draft draft featuring hidden gems, but overall, and over time, the bad draft tags various drafts featured have fit.

[Shoe]

Read on Twitter

On tankathon per 36 it says Poku is averaging 12.2 rebounds. His frame looks weak but if can rebound at a decent rate he can have an NBA career. I don't think he's a Jianlian, Vesely, Bender etc. but who knows.

[The Consiglieri]

You think so? In a weak draft that might be 12 players deep? 17 22 and 30. For 9 and no future compensation? Sounds fair to me....

Look... every single year people call it "a weak draft." & every single year more or less the same number of good NBA players come out of it. Except, once in a while, people say "this is a really deep draft," whereupon it turns out to be full of stiffs!

Neither you nor I nor anyone knows in advance how many good NBA players will be drafted this year nor just how good the good ones will be. Period. I've demonstrated this a whole bunch of times. You only know later, looking back.

Nor is the guy picked at #9 likely to be anywhere near the best player who was available at that spot. All you have to do is look at a few drafts to know that.

At random, 2014 -- 9 of the top 15 guys taken (including the #1 & #2 picks) are nowhere as good as 9 guys taken in R2. It's a version of the same thing every single year.

As to what "sounds fair" to you -- what does that mean? Show me a single trade akin to the one you suggest. There aren't any to show.

...Plus the Celtics are pretty much bringing back that team next year. What do they need a center. There are about 4 good centers in this draft and 1 or two will be there at 9 they have a lot of young lower tried firsts on the team already it would make sense to bunch them to move up !...

Sigh...

Not relevant. If they want to trade #s 17, 26 & 30 to move up, they can get better than the #9 for them. If, for some reason, it's the #9 that they want, they can get it for less than those 3 picks. Duh....!!!

I have a hard time understanding what you're trying to say here. If you're trying to say that no-one can nail the best players in a draft perfectly, well, that goes without saying. If you're trying to say, "every year they say it's a weak class" well that isn't true, like even at all. If you're trying to say the classes they say will suck, are filled with stiffs, I just don't see it. I look back, '92, '93, '94, and '95 were nearly spot on what they called at the time. '96 was better than advertised, while '98 and '99 were a bit better too, while '00 was expected to be bad and was much worse. '01 was a hard read that was seen as top heavy and wasn't. '02 was similar, '03 was supposedly stacked and was. More recently '10 was supposed to great and wasn't that great, '12 was seen as loaded and was, '15 and '17 were seen as better than '13, '14 and '16 and were, and '18 was better than '19 although 2 of the 3 best players in those combined drafts were probably out of '19.

I just don't really get your point here. It's a generalized thing. Some players picked lower are going to be better than players picked higher, but more players picked higher are going to be successful than those picked lower over the fullness of time. That's just a fact. You can try to pin the tail on the donkey, you can try and nail that bullseye in that mind field of picks in the late teens through the thirties, but it strikes me as a fools errand. It's a huge mine field of misses. You could respond by saying that the top 10 is as well, ditto the lottery, and I'd disagree. You can pick any player in the top 10 or the lottery, when you're picking outside of that zone it is much harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. I just randomly looked up a win share study of draft picks and it reinforces this. There are always hits everywhere across the fullness of time but there are also always more hits the higher in the draft you pick over the fullness of time as well. You will have outlier years, and outlier picks, and players, you will have drafts like 2013 where the best players were all picked outside the typical blue chip zones, and drafts like 2003 where it was nearly paint by numbers as long as you weren't Joe Dumars and Detroit and the latter are just far more common when you pile up the drafts together.

[The Consiglieri]

Yeah there are guys that are good that go there but 5 second round picks don't get you a top ten you know why? Because pick4-10 is better than pick 40-50. It has nothing to do what so ever about how good the players may or may not be. 9 is a better pick than 51 other picks in the draft because there is one more player on the board to choose from. We all know you got lucky and Brandon clarke ended up being as good or better than you thought he was, but that's not a good point. I bright up those picks because those are what we are talking about right now. Two of those guys I mentioned suck, the other one isn't even in the league. The point I am making is when you say they have just as good of a chance to be good they have just as good of a chance to be ****. There are variables here piff. The person making the pick, injuries, work ethics, persona lives and ****. What would rui be if he hadn't got kicked in the nuts? We will never know.

I believe in good scouting I believe in stocking up on assets. I agree that trading back would be a decent move. What I disagree with is the valuation. No pick in the draft is ever the same value as the same pick of another year. Drafts are deeper or thinner than others. Some have more talent than others. The fact still remains. There is a lot of luck involved. 26 and 30 don't get you top ten they just don't. Do 17-26 or 17-30 maybe. Depends on a lot of stuff. But I think it's not as cut and dry as saying look at last year we could have traded back and got Clark and thybulle. We could have easily traded back and taken two guys worse than rui.

Maybe Boston has better offers maybe gma don't like the back half of this draft and they don't. idk. But I do know if there is a certain point where you walk away and keep what you have and I would think long and had about trading back for from 9 to 17 and 30 alone. just my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

He didn't get lucky with Clarke, it was a smart eval a ton of sharp people agreed with. No offense to him, because he was right on Clarke, but it wasn't an outlier opinion. There were a ton of people that loved Clarke pre-draft, and I think there was a consensus that his draft day fall was a classic wtf? moment in an NBA draft like Caron Butler and Paul Pierce back in the day (the two that have always stuck in my mind). Just a look:

TSN: Their post draft grades guy had Clarke #5
Theringer: #14 in their first big board
Bleacher Report: #8
SI: 23rd (okay, we've found the idiots, of course the ----wits who run SI these days probably fired the guy who did that ranking long ago).
CBS: 13th

So basically he was kinda sitting typically in the late top 10 to early teens with some outliers.

My sense of the board a year ago was that Clarke was a well liked prospect generally as well.

For me, anyway, CCJ has got the plaudits for nailing some pretty crazy prospects in some sketchy drafts, hitting on Clarke for me, is just sticking to a valuation that was relatively close to consensus predraft until the NBA GM's showed up in their collective draft rooms and for the bulk of the picks around slots 6-22 proceeded to step on rakes for the following 2+ hours. That was an NBA miss, not a realgm wizards board miss, I think most of us liked him a lot and would've loved to have gotten him, especially with some sort of trade up when he fell so far.

[doclinkin]

Yeah there are guys that are good that go there but 5 second round picks don't get you a top ten you know why? Because pick4-10 is better than pick 40-50. It has nothing to do what so ever about how good the players may or may not be. 9 is a better pick than 51 other picks in the draft because there is one more player on the board to choose from. We all know you got lucky and Brandon clarke ended up being as good or better than you thought he was, but that's not a good point. I bright up those picks because those are what we are talking about right now. Two of those guys I mentioned suck, the other one isn't even in the league. The point I am making is when you say they have just as good of a chance to be good they have just as good of a chance to be ****. There are variables here piff. The person making the pick, injuries, work ethics, persona lives and ****. What would rui be if he hadn't got kicked in the nuts? We will never know.

I believe in good scouting I believe in stocking up on assets. I agree that trading back would be a decent move. What I disagree with is the valuation. No pick in the draft is ever the same value as the same pick of another year. Drafts are deeper or thinner than others. Some have more talent than others. The fact still remains. There is a lot of luck involved. 26 and 30 don't get you top ten they just don't. Do 17-26 or 17-30 maybe. Depends on a lot of stuff. But I think it's not as cut and dry as saying look at last year we could have traded back and got Clark and thybulle. We could have easily traded back and taken two guys worse than rui.

Maybe Boston has better offers maybe gma don't like the back half of this draft and they don't. idk. But I do know if there is a certain point where you walk away and keep what you have and I would think long and had about trading back for from 9 to 17 and 30 alone. just my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

He didn't get lucky with Clarke, it was a smart eval a ton of sharp people agreed with. No offense to him, because he was right on Clarke, but it wasn't an outlier opinion. There were a ton of people that loved Clarke pre-draft, and I think there was a consensus that his draft day fall was a classic wtf? moment in an NBA draft like Caron Butler and Paul Pierce back in the day (the two that have always stuck in my mind). Just a look:

TSN: Their post draft grades guy had Clarke #5
Theringer: #14 in their first big board
Bleacher Report: #8
SI: 23rd (okay, we've found the idiots, of course the ----wits who run SI these days probably fired the guy who did that ranking long ago).
CBS: 13th

So basically he was kinda sitting typically in the late top 10 to early teens with some outliers.

My sense of the board a year ago was that Clarke was a well liked prospect generally as well.

For me, anyway, CCJ has got the plaudits for nailing some pretty crazy prospects in some sketchy drafts, hitting on Clarke for me, is just sticking to a valuation that was relatively close to consensus predraft until the NBA GM's showed up in their collective draft rooms and for the bulk of the picks around slots 6-22 proceeded to step on rakes for the following 2+ hours. That was an NBA miss, not a realgm wizards board miss, I think most of us liked him a lot and would've loved to have gotten him, especially with some sort of trade up when he fell so far.

Hah. I think I tabbed him first and he was the player I liked best except that PIF is fun to disagree with. Since he was so loud on Clarke it was more fun to be contrarian. His main point I generally agree with: every year there are a few guys that many teams miss on. If you trade back and pick up extra spots then you have multiple chances of selecting at least one of those guys. Or if you trust that your scouting is better than others', you may pick up more than one.

To my way of thinking the least valued picks are future years. In a questionable year I personally would rather drop back to take a flyer on one of a handful of guys that might pan out, but collect a future pick or a 2nd rounder and the option to swap first round pics in a future year. Future picks and rd 2 players are still a market inefficiency to exploit.

The only issue with selecting picks in bulk is that every team has limited roster spots and limited time to develop young players. Adding 2 way players gives a little breathing room, but not much. You can hide a guy in the G League for a time, but if he is good other teams can poach him. You can draft and stash a promising Euro player, since those guys are less well scouted. But still, teams tend to win not with a swarm of talented rookies but generally with a talented consensus best in their draft superstar at the peak of their game. Those guys used to be only available drafting #1 overall. Now in the era of short contracts and player movement and "taking my talents to South Beach" you can assemble a team out of disgruntled superstars. Or superstars who would like to be better gruntled anyway. But those guys generally only want to join a squad with a decent chance of winning. They want to play with known commodities who have learned how to thrive in the league. Even the most talented players take 3 years or so to figure it out and don't hit their prime until 5-6 years into their career.

In fact a team with too many players to develop is ripe to exploit when they are forced to give up on one or more of their guys early. There is a market inefficiency right there. That is how we land a Thomas Bryant for free (and Bonga and Wagner if you like them). And how LA's top picks end up in New Orleans and everywhere else. Young cats heading into their 2nd contract have hidden potential if their value has been suppressed by playing on a young team that hasn't learned how to win. That's an inefficiency to exploit. Their first team becomes a farm team for the rest of the league. But we don't ourselves want to be that farm team.

Though since we have financial imbalance on our roster we may not have a choice. Seems to me we have two ways to build a winner. I suppose the value of all of our talent could be suppressed and we could build a team that is full of young guys who enjoy the atmosphere despite battling for minutes and we re ink all of them to extended contracts at lower value and develop them to all peak at once.

OR

We get good enough to attract attention and become a destination for another team's star who adds us to a list of teams they are willing to be traded to and we bundle a mess of that developing talent in a win-now pitch that is top heavy with superstars and a handful of bargain vets who see this as a realistic place to make a push for a ring. And if Ted is willing to pay a premium for a short term run at a supernova.

Here, IF Wall returns healthy and we play well and start winning, while Beal is peaking and coveted by every team in the league, then hey, maybe we can play that strategy in the short window before both their contracts expire. Players voted Beal to start in the allstar game even if fans and coaches kept him out. Players respect Wall. We nearly landed Horford who wanted to play with those two before looking at the dysfunction in our front office.

Actually in a year like this where teams all seem to think there is no great player in the draft, I feel like if you trust your scouting department you may get value in trading UP for the one guy you need. Personally I'd like Okongwu. If I could get him by trading up a couple spots, I'd think about it. I see synergy in his game and what our squad needs. Here is an example of a player who would swiftly help maximize the value-for-pick and sinter well with our established stars. Highlights are good but I like here his ability to examine his weaknesses and analyze what he would do wrong and process criticism. That is a player who will improve every year:

Watch on YouTube

If not him then okay trade down, and net me Xavier Tillman and whomever else. Tyler Bey. And future picks. Because those future picks are the ones that may net us the replacement superstar we will need when this era is past and we need a refresh button.

[Ruzious]

Inspired by Dat, here's my top 10 players for the 2020 draft:

1. Wiseman - He'll make his share of defensive mistakes, but there's too much there there to like for a player his size, and I'm convinced he will dominate.

2. Okongwu - The best defender in this draft and has a reasonable chance to be an above average offensive player. Will make his team better.

3. Killian Hayes - looks and plays like a man among boys - while being younger than everyone else.

4. Anthony Edwards - yeah, he's still a bit overrated, but there's no doubt he's an explosive scorer who can score in many ways and is capable of being an all-around player.

5. Tyrese Haliburton - Maybe the smartest player in the draft. Basically the same size as SGA, and the fact that SGA has excelled is an indication that Haliburton's thin frame won't hurt him too much.

6. Obi Toppin - Outstanding offensive potential and could develop into an adequate defender.

7. Aaron Nesmith - pick inspired by Dat, but I've been consistent - I've been pumping up Nesmith for quite a while. I think he's a better prospect than Hield was.

8. Josh Green - he's been overshadowed by teammate Niko Mannion, but he's a better NBA prospect. Really good all-around 2 with some combo-guard ability.

9. Saddiq Bey. Dat had the other Bey here, but I think Saddiq is such a good fit as a 3 in today's NBA game.

10. Deni Avdija - I'm not completely sold on him (3 point shot mainly), but in this draft - it's hard to pass up an all-around talent like him. Giving him the slight edge over Tyler Bey, Daniel Oturu, Vernon Carey, and Jalen Smith.

[DCZards]

Inspired by Dat, here's my top 10 players for the 2020 draft:

1. Wiseman - He'll make his share of defensive mistakes, but there's too much there there to like for a player his size, and I'm convinced he will dominate.

2. Okongwu - The best defender in this draft and has a reasonable chance to be an above average offensive player. Will make his team better.

3. Killian Hayes - looks and plays like a man among boys - while being younger than everyone else.

4. Anthony Edwards - yeah, he's still a bit overrated, but there's no doubt he's an explosive scorer who can score in many ways and is capable of being an all-around player.

5. Tyrese Haliburton - Maybe the smartest player in the draft. Basically the same size as SGA, and the fact that SGA has excelled is an indication that Haliburton's thin frame won't hurt him too much.

6. Obi Toppin - Outstanding offensive potential and could develop into an adequate defender.

7. Aaron Nesmith - pick inspired by Dat, but I've been consistent - I've been pumping up Nesmith for quite a while. I think he's a better prospect than Hield was.

8. Josh Green - he's been overshadowed by teammate Niko Mannion, but he's a better NBA prospect. Really good all-around 2 with some combo-guard ability.

9. Saddiq Bey. Dat had the other Bey here, but I think Saddiq is such a good fit as a 3 in today's NBA game.

10. Deni Avdija - I'm not completely sold on him (3 point shot mainly), but in this draft - it's hard to pass up an all-around talent like him. Giving him the slight edge over Tyler Bey, Daniel Oturu, Vernon Carey, and Jalen Smith.

Yeah, kinda hard to keep Edwards out of the top 5 or so. I'm always reluctant to take anything away from a kid with his obvious NBA-ready physical abilities because of a shaky one-year college career.

I like S. Bey a lot. But I don't have him in my top 10. I'd put him in the 12-15 range. Saddiq will fit well as a scorer in the NBA but I worry about his D. He doesn't appear to have the quickness that it takes to defend other NBA 3s. I have Vassell a notch or two ahead of him.

It's hard to call Toppin a "sleeper" given that he's in everybody's top 10. But I do think he's a tad underrated. Like you I believe Obi's offensive game is the real deal and that he'll put in the work to improve on the defensive end.